Buy on Amazon
€40.13
In Stock
Availability
Availability
Availability
Availability
Key Differences
In short — Core i5-3330 outperforms the cheaper Celeron G1620 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Celeron G1620 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i5-3330 is 91 days older than the cheaper Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Core i5-3330
- Performs up to 2% better in Battlefield IV than Celeron G1620 - 375 vs 368 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 4 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Up to 50% cheaper than Core i5-3330 - €20.16 vs €40.13
- Up to 55% better value when playing Battlefield IV than Core i5-3330 - €0.05 vs €0.11 per FPS
- Consumes up to 29% less energy than Intel Core i5-3330 - 55 vs 77 Watts
Battlefield IV
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
CHYYAC Intel Core I5-3330 I5 3330 3,0 GHz Quad-Core CPU Prozessor 6M 77W LGA 1155
Buy for €40.13 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 110 minutes ago
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
368
98%
Value, €/FPS
€0.05/FPS
100%
Price, €
€20.16
100%
Value Winner
Intel Celeron G1620 CPU Verwendeter 2-Kern-2-Thread-Desktop-Prozessor 2,7 GHz 2M 55W LGA1155
Buy for €20.16 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 110 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Core i5-3330
Desktop • Sep 3rd, 2012
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i5-3330 | vs | Intel Celeron G1620 |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
| Core i5 | Collection | Celeron |
| Ivy Bridge | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
| Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 2 |
4 | Threads | 2 |
3.0 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.7 GHz |
| 3.2 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
| 77 W | TDP | 55 W |
| 22 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
30.0x | Multiplier | 27.0x |
| Intel HD 2500 | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
| No | Overclockable | No |
Similar CPU Comparisons
Select from the most popular similar processor comparisons. Most compared processor combinations, including the currently selected ones, are at the top.
